3 ms·

Yes. There is no rational argument against it, only FUD.

by GuiA 12y ago

frozenport 12y ago
>> no rational argument against it People getting injured? Reoccurring flashbacks?
- aberzombie 12y ago
  Study citation needed, or this is the very definition of FUD.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  People getting injured is a good argument against horseback riding, and climbing mount everest - but neither of those activities is illegal. Shouldn't individuals be allowed to make informed choices regarding their activity, particularly if it does not harm those around them? Driving a car is dangerous, and it kills many innocent people who aren't driving - but we haven't mandated mass transit because we believe in the freedom to move.
  - frozenport 12y ago
    Consider guns or even certain fireworks. There are things that are dangerous that can be done by the foolish, the laws for regulating these are well motivated.
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      I'm certainly not opposed to the regulation of psychedelics (particularly keeping them away from younger children) though I expect the number of deaths which would occur to unregulated use of MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin, Marijuana, Peyote, DMT, Ketamine are pretty minimal.
Symmetry 12y ago
There are very few policy arguments in the modern world where there is literally no rational argument on one side. It is, however, very easy for people for people to get so wrapped up in one side of issue that they can no longer even see the arguments on the other side. Maybe that's typical, even. In the case of marijuana I'm strongly in favor of legalization on the same basis as alcohol with maybe driving while intoxicated being treated a bit more leniently. But if you want rational reasons why legalization might not be idea see here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha...
- GuiA 12y ago
  The problem is that the underlying logic for all arguments that apply to criminalization of marijuana/psychedelics would also apply to the criminalization of alcohol, cigarettes, riding motorcycles, and so on. So either you believe alcohol should be made illegal again etc., or you believe marijuana should be legal - but there is no logical consistency to a "middle of the road" approach. Also the blog post you linked to has links to interesting studies, but it's a bit hard to take seriously when it holds gems of stupidity such as: "Those 400,000 teens would lose 8 IQ points each. IQ increases your yearly earnings by about $500 per point, so these people would lose about $4,000 a year. Making very strong assumptions about salary being a measure of value to society, society would lose about $1.6 billion a year directly, plus various intangibles from potential artists and scientists losing the ability to create masterpieces and inventions, plus various really intangibles like a slightly dumber electorate." I also heavily disagree with your premise: "There are very few policy arguments in the modern world where there is literally no rational argument on one side" I do believe that the media and various partisans groups are very skilled at spinning stories in such a way that it seems that all sides on an issue have their good points, but in retrospect it is often obvious how barbaric and misguided certain sides of the debate were. Examples: death penalty, women's right to vote, black people's right to vote, gay right to marry, etc. There is no doubt when I say that none of the arguments against women's right to vote, or for the death penalty, are consistent, rational, or logical in anyway. They ultimately all stem from FUD. So what current debates will be seen the same way 50 years from now? 100 years from now?

Yes. There is no rational argument against it, only FUD.

by GuiA 12y ago

Yes. There is no rational argument against it, only FUD.

frozenport 12y ago

>> no rational argument against it People getting injured? Reoccurring flashbacks?

aberzombie 12y ago
Study citation needed, or this is the very definition of FUD.
ghshephard 12y ago
People getting injured is a good argument against horseback riding, and climbing mount everest - but neither of those activities is illegal. Shouldn't individuals be allowed to make informed choices regarding their activity, particularly if it does not harm those around them? Driving a car is dangerous, and it kills many innocent people who aren't driving - but we haven't mandated mass transit because we believe in the freedom to move.
- frozenport 12y ago
  Consider guns or even certain fireworks. There are things that are dangerous that can be done by the foolish, the laws for regulating these are well motivated.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    I'm certainly not opposed to the regulation of psychedelics (particularly keeping them away from younger children) though I expect the number of deaths which would occur to unregulated use of MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin, Marijuana, Peyote, DMT, Ketamine are pretty minimal.

Symmetry 12y ago

There are very few policy arguments in the modern world where there is literally no rational argument on one side. It is, however, very easy for people for people to get so wrapped up in one side of issue that they can no longer even see the arguments on the other side. Maybe that's typical, even. In the case of marijuana I'm strongly in favor of legalization on the same basis as alcohol with maybe driving while intoxicated being treated a bit more leniently. But if you want rational reasons why legalization might not be idea see here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha...

GuiA 12y ago
The problem is that the underlying logic for all arguments that apply to criminalization of marijuana/psychedelics would also apply to the criminalization of alcohol, cigarettes, riding motorcycles, and so on. So either you believe alcohol should be made illegal again etc., or you believe marijuana should be legal - but there is no logical consistency to a "middle of the road" approach. Also the blog post you linked to has links to interesting studies, but it's a bit hard to take seriously when it holds gems of stupidity such as: "Those 400,000 teens would lose 8 IQ points each. IQ increases your yearly earnings by about $500 per point, so these people would lose about $4,000 a year. Making very strong assumptions about salary being a measure of value to society, society would lose about $1.6 billion a year directly, plus various intangibles from potential artists and scientists losing the ability to create masterpieces and inventions, plus various really intangibles like a slightly dumber electorate." I also heavily disagree with your premise: "There are very few policy arguments in the modern world where there is literally no rational argument on one side" I do believe that the media and various partisans groups are very skilled at spinning stories in such a way that it seems that all sides on an issue have their good points, but in retrospect it is often obvious how barbaric and misguided certain sides of the debate were. Examples: death penalty, women's right to vote, black people's right to vote, gay right to marry, etc. There is no doubt when I say that none of the arguments against women's right to vote, or for the death penalty, are consistent, rational, or logical in anyway. They ultimately all stem from FUD. So what current debates will be seen the same way 50 years from now? 100 years from now?